Originally posted by StMichael

Originally posted by xKingdomx

Stop thinking there is only one way to do things, that is the reason why we even have the 'clone' phase started, because most developers think there are only one way to make a good MMO.

So instead of coming up with something creative on the mechanics side to compliment the lore-based decision, they should clone a game that better suits your tastes?

That's really all I'm hearing. They shouldn't go with us vs them, because that would be cloning. Instead, they should be "original" and mimic an eleven year old game based on nothing more than some fantasy theory of "balance."

Which path is the real clone? Making your own adaptation of a two sided struggle, or following in the footsteps of a 3 sided one?

Well if you actually read the OP and my post better, you would realise he was stating the necessary need for a 3rd faction in order for proper pvp balance.

Then my first sentence which you edited out,

"they can always just make server vs server vs server, or WvWvW like GW2. Introducing a faction for the the sake of introducing it will be fail, no matter what the intentions are."

was just saying, as long as there are three sides to the battle, it doesn't really matter if it is a faction or not, eg: thee different servers playing against each other like GW2 or even a devs controlled third faction, then they can easily use spawn characters to balance out population issues whenever they want. their AI won't be perfect, but letting them control the population will be beneficial.

My second paragraph is saying that, if people are focus on using one particular way to solve a design issue, everything will be attribute the the idea of 'cloning'

I'm never said this particular idea is cloning.

Originally posted by StMichael

Hold on a second, you're willing to bitch and whine about a game you know next to nothing about based on its lack of inclusion of a game system that has been used in all of 2 games to date (neither of which really achieved any real success) and I'M the close-minded one?

I'm done. You won't listen to anything I say because it flies in the face of your precious 3 faction dogma. At the end of all this, I'm still getting the game I want instead of having to whine on an unofficial forum about not getting my way. When it finally gets released, you can either play it, or put faith in SoE to make a good game.

Your measure of 'any real success' is flawed.  DAoC had quite a lot of success, as did Planetside before their transformer patch.  If your measure of success in the MMO world is WoW, that's like saying you're not successful unless you are least as reach as Bill Gates... O_o

Originally posted by Yimmarans

Originally posted by StMichael

Hold on a second, you're willing to bitch and whine about a game you know next to nothing about based on its lack of inclusion of a game system that has been used in all of 2 games to date (neither of which really achieved any real success) and I'M the close-minded one?

I'm done. You won't listen to anything I say because it flies in the face of your precious 3 faction dogma. At the end of all this, I'm still getting the game I want instead of having to whine on an unofficial forum about not getting my way. When it finally gets released, you can either play it, or put faith in SoE to make a good game.

Your measure of 'any real success' is flawed.  DAoC had quite a lot of success, as did Planetside before their transformer patch.  If your measure of success in the MMO world is WoW, that's like saying you're not successful unless you are least as reach as Bill Gates... O_o

You have to also put into account that those games were big before most MMO's really got big.

Replace dark age with GW2 then. It's still taking an idea and blatantly ripping it off, even if pitting servers against one another makes no sense for DMO considering you'd have races fighting against themselves. I also straight up disagree with the notion that a 3rd side is "necessary" for a good PvP game. All it does for a game is create chaos and promote ganging up on the weakest side. The whole "2 faction PvP is unbalanced! The strong only get stronger!" mantra is game specific and a direct result of that game's design decisions. DMO is in a strong position (which they've indicated is a "pillar" to their game) of using vehicles as the battlefield equalizer. Sides of mismatched players can easily be evened out with a vindicator here, a wartrukk there, and so on.

So I ask you again, which one's the clone? Original thought, or copying another game?

Originally posted by Feydiir

Originally posted by Yimmarans

Originally posted by StMichael

Hold on a second, you're willing to bitch and whine about a game you know next to nothing about based on its lack of inclusion of a game system that has been used in all of 2 games to date (neither of which really achieved any real success) and I'M the close-minded one?

I'm done. You won't listen to anything I say because it flies in the face of your precious 3 faction dogma. At the end of all this, I'm still getting the game I want instead of having to whine on an unofficial forum about not getting my way. When it finally gets released, you can either play it, or put faith in SoE to make a good game.

Your measure of 'any real success' is flawed.  DAoC had quite a lot of success, as did Planetside before their transformer patch.  If your measure of success in the MMO world is WoW, that's like saying you're not successful unless you are least as reach as Bill Gates... O_o

You have to also put into account that those games were big before most MMO's really got big.

Let's compare them to Everquest then. It was released 2 years before dark age, and 4 years before Planetside, yet while the original Everquest still has over a hundred thousand subscribers as of mid 2010 and peaked around five hundred thousand in 2003, Dark Age peaked around half that at 250k subscriptions max, and now runs somewhere around 4k subs. Planetside is even worse, peaking at just 60k subs a few months after release, and having a swift decline into server mergers soon after, and only 1 global server left.

They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. If you want sources, do some research yourself and find out.

All, just a friendly reminder here. Please be respectful to others when voicing your opinions and not harass others no matter what other people's opinions are on any games.

---

Originally posted by StMichael
Replace dark age with GW2 then. It's still taking an idea and blatantly ripping it off, even if pitting servers against one another makes no sense for DMO considering you'd have races fighting against themselves. I also straight up disagree with the notion that a 3rd side is "necessary" for a good PvP game. All it does for a game is create chaos and promote ganging up on the weakest side. The whole "2 faction PvP is unbalanced! The strong only get stronger!" mantra is game specific and a direct result of that game's design decisions. DMO is in a strong position (which they've indicated is a "pillar" to their game) of using vehicles as the battlefield equalizer. Sides of mismatched players can easily be evened out with a vindicator here, a wartrukk there, and so on.
 
So I ask you again, which one's the clone? Original thought, or copying another game?

---

Originally posted by StMichael

Replace dark age with GW2 then. It's still taking an idea and blatantly ripping it off, even if pitting servers against one another makes no sense for DMO considering you'd have races fighting against themselves. I also straight up disagree with the notion that a 3rd side is "necessary" for a good PvP game. All it does for a game is create chaos and promote ganging up on the weakest side. The whole "2 faction PvP is unbalanced! The strong only get stronger!" mantra is game specific and a direct result of that game's design decisions. DMO is in a strong position (which they've indicated is a "pillar" to their game) of using vehicles as the battlefield equalizer. Sides of mismatched players can easily be evened out with a vindicator here, a wartrukk there, and so on.

 

So I ask you again, which one's the clone? Original thought, or copying another game?

Bleh, you talk nonsense. Either when trying the "copying" argument or "game balance". Just plain nonsense. Take a primer on game theory 101 and then we can have a talk. This is ridiculous. 

You can argue that vehicle availability can be a balancing mechanism but it just shows to tell how inherently unbalanced 2 faction system is because you need arbitrary balancing mechanism to keep the thing from concluding... Which is not always a bad thing, mind you. If you want the game to eventually end with a clear winner then you lump players into 2 opposing factions. In instanced scenarios, for example. Or particular battles in open world. That's like 1+1=2 man. Read up, think and then we can talk.

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by StMichael

Replace dark age with GW2 then. It's still taking an idea and blatantly ripping it off, even if pitting servers against one another makes no sense for DMO considering you'd have races fighting against themselves. I also straight up disagree with the notion that a 3rd side is "necessary" for a good PvP game. All it does for a game is create chaos and promote ganging up on the weakest side. The whole "2 faction PvP is unbalanced! The strong only get stronger!" mantra is game specific and a direct result of that game's design decisions. DMO is in a strong position (which they've indicated is a "pillar" to their game) of using vehicles as the battlefield equalizer. Sides of mismatched players can easily be evened out with a vindicator here, a wartrukk there, and so on.

 

So I ask you again, which one's the clone? Original thought, or copying another game?

Bleh, you talk nonsense. Either when trying the "copying" argument or "game balance". Just plain nonsense. Take a primer on game theory 101 and then we can have a talk. This is ridiculous. 

You can argue that vehicle availability can be a balancing mechanism but it just shows to tell how inherently unbalanced 2 faction system is because you need arbitrary balancing mechanism to keep the thing from concluding... Which is not always a bad thing, mind you. If you want the game to eventually end with a clear winner then you lump players into 2 opposing factions. In instanced scenarios, for example. Or particular battles in open world. That's like 1+1=2 man. Read up, think and then we can talk.

What the hell are you talking about? I can't even decipher what your "claim" is supposed to be in that mess. And what are your credentials on game design to be telling me to go learn game theory 101?

Originally posted by StMichael

Originally posted by xKingdomx

Stop thinking there is only one way to do things, that is the reason why we even have the 'clone' phase started, because most developers think there are only one way to make a good MMO.

So instead of coming up with something creative on the mechanics side to compliment the lore-based decision, they should clone a game that better suits your tastes?

That's really all I'm hearing. They shouldn't go with us vs them, because that would be cloning. Instead, they should be "original" and mimic an eleven year old game based on nothing more than some fantasy theory of "balance."

Which path is the real clone? Making your own adaptation of a two sided struggle, or following in the footsteps of a 3 sided one?

This, "dont copy them, copy this instead" is pretty much what this is all about, no where has anyone proven that having 3 factions will magically balance the game, it certainly didnt in planetside, not when i played.

Originally posted by Spalliero
Ok so let's put this out there. Basically we want more from the game while st mike wants less. We prove that the game is much more than two sided, even talking to GW, the owners, creators, and caretakers of 40k. We state we want more by showing the trend of th industry to multiple sided conflicts, we even go so far as to offer a way the game could have 2 sides and then develop more. Then we are told we aren't listening? Lolz we are being ignored and argued with ignorantly. It's like a politician, we can show all the proof in the world but some people just will not believe it and in point of fact say the exact opposite just cause that's what they want to believe. Here are the facts from GW; 40k is multiple sided conflict ip. Here are the facts from developers; Games can, have been, are being and will be made with multiple sided conflict scenarios. THESE ARE FACTS, GET ON THE FACTS SO THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND FAIR!

Typing in capitals does not make your statements any more believable especially when you are attempting to argue against a straw man rather than against what st.M is actually saying.

Sure you aren't listening, you certainly aren't understanding.

Misrepresenting the other's views in order to argue against that rather than actually addressing their points, now that really is the sort of thing disreputable 'politicians' do.

Ok raving, typing in caps locks is a way to emphasize my final statement and point of my post.

If read the posts we've had in the past I've proven I have listened, even calling people st mike had referenced to support his pov, they totally disagreed with him so he was speaking falsely for them. I have also triedd possible seeding ideas that incorporate 2 sided conflicts in pvp and then escalating to multiple sided in a series of possible scenarios, just ideas.

In the end I am representing a pov that is truer to the ip. We can either wait for a mediocre game or we can voice our fan and ip supported views early enough to hopefully change the game to be better and or more progressive.

The politian references is about sleigh of hand and speaking falsely for others, I haven't done either yet. So well ARE YOU LISTENING?

As an MMO the game reallyn eeds a minimum of 3 factions to succeed IMHO.

Originally posted by TheCrow2k

As an MMO the game reallyn eeds a minimum of 3 factions to succeed IMHO.

Agreed, but we have to wait and see what Vigil say about the game at E3 2012.

---

Originally posted by Spalliero
Ok raving, typing in caps locks is a way to emphasize my final statement and point of my post.

If read the posts we've had in the past I've proven I have listened, even calling people st mike had referenced to support his pov, they totally disagreed with him so he was speaking falsely for them. I have also triedd possible seeding ideas that incorporate 2 sided conflicts in pvp and then escalating to multiple sided in a series of possible scenarios, just ideas.

In the end I am representing a pov that is truer to the ip. We can either wait for a mediocre game or we can voice our fan and ip supported views early enough to hopefully change the game to be better and or more progressive.

The politian references is about sleigh of hand and speaking falsely for others, I haven't done either yet. So well ARE YOU LISTENING?

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Spalliero
Ok raving, typing in caps locks is a way to emphasize my final statement and point of my post.

 

If read the posts we've had in the past I've proven I have listened, even calling people st mike had referenced to support his pov, they totally disagreed with him so he was speaking falsely for them. I have also triedd possible seeding ideas that incorporate 2 sided conflicts in pvp and then escalating to multiple sided in a series of possible scenarios, just ideas.

In the end I am representing a pov that is truer to the ip. We can either wait for a mediocre game or we can voice our fan and ip supported views early enough to hopefully change the game to be better and or more progressive.

The politian references is about sleigh of hand and speaking falsely for others, I haven't done either yet. So well ARE YOU LISTENING?

---

Most of the people who are going to buy the game haven't heard of Warhammer and they definitely haven't played a Warhammer PnP game. Those players, the ones who will make development of the game profitable do not care that the game doesn't have three factions. Those people just want a fun game to play.

Anyway, the developer is more than 50% of the way through development on the game. They are not going to add another faction at this point. When the game releases, it will have two factions and that's it.

 

I hope you realise that a LOT of people will have heard of Warhammer Age of Reckoning. On top of that the W40k Franchise spans several games. Lets not forget the novel/tabletop community as well.

Now in spite of that, yes there will still be a lot of people who will play this game who haven't heard of Warhammer 40k. A Large majority of them won't be first time MMO players. Most would have played an MMO or 2 and it would have likely been either WoW / RIFT / SWTOR. They would be familiar with faction based systems and may not like 2 factions....anyway its all speculation. But don't underestimate the number of people who are bored with the same 2 faction crap thats been going on for years. Just because it worked for WoW doesn't mean it'll work for everything else.

The developers have been pretty much silent about how the game is progressing and just exactly what it will be for some time now. So it would be safe to say we are quite unfamiliar with what the game will actually be. Despite the stuff we heard way back in 2010.

Stop giving StMichael attention. He's clearly a troll, and I'll show you why I say that:
 

---

Originally posted by StMichael

So instead of coming up with something creative on the mechanics side to compliment the lore-based decision, they should clone a game that better suits your tastes?
 
That's really all I'm hearing. They shouldn't go with us vs them, because that would be cloning. Instead, they should be "original" and mimic an eleven year old game based on nothing more than some fantasy theory of "balance."
Which path is the real clone? Making your own adaptation of a two sided struggle, or following in the footsteps of a 3 sided one?

---

 
Almost all his arguments are like this and can be picked apart in the same way. Trolls tend to give arguments that are clearly wrong in order to insight responses, especially angry responses.

In this quote, he is saying a two-faction system would be an adaptation of other two-faction systems, therefore not entirely cloning other games' systems. But what he clearly fails to mention is that his exact argument of "it wouldn't be a clone" can be applied to a three-faction system. After all, if an adaptation of a two-faction system can be made, why not a system with more factions?

So either he is a troll and intentionally putting obvious flaws in his arguments, or he just isn't that smart.

I'll take it further:
 

---

Originally posted by StMichael

If you create a 3 faction MMO under the warhammer 40k IP, you have locked yourself into whatever it is you're able to start with. If it happens to be only 3 races, you'll never see more than 3 playable races in the same game. I've already explained why that is earlier.
Adding a faction into a game after launch (or even after beta) is about as much work as just making a whole new game. So we can either go with order vs destruction and have a well made, expandable game that still has a strong foundation in the 40k IP, or we can try and scrap what we already have, start over with a non-expandable multi-faction game and just pray that it's even halfway decent when it launches.

---

The obvious flaw is the fact that they are further locking themselves in with a two-faction system. Mike is assuming that the two-faction system will have some magical properties which make the addition of new races more believable than adding them to a three-faction system. In this argument as well as the previous, he gives all the benefit to his argument while his point applies equally to both.
 

---

Originally posted by StMichael

How would adding a 3rd faction to a 2 faction game be any different from adding a 4th faction to a 3 faction game? Besides of course the idea of finding credible allies to populate said 3rd faction.
 

2 faction fights are by their nature much more open ended than 3. Take just about every competetive game or sport out there and break it down to its basic mechanics, and you have that many options for 2 factions to fight. "Us vs Them" was what allowed Mythic to come up with all the different scenarios in the various rulesets they have. Think of all the modes of gameplay that wouldn't be possible across any number of games with 3 sides. You'd be limited only to those that worked for 3 sides. I'd be willing to bet that Planetside won't have scenarios/battlegrounds/whatever, and even if they do, it will be only 1 or 2 rulesets across different maps.

---

And these are just a few samples that I recall off the top of my head. Almost everything he posts has a clear and obvious flaw. Not just regular flaws that makes an argument 'less correct,' but flaws so absurd as to make the act of replying feel like a waste of time.
There are definitely merits to a two-faction system, but if I were one of the supporters, I definitely wouldn't want StMichael arguing for us. I suggest letting this post be the last bit of attention he's given.

Originally posted by lizardbones

Most of the people who are going to buy the game haven't heard of Warhammer and they definitely haven't played a Warhammer PnP game. Those players, the ones who will make development of the game profitable do not care that the game doesn't have three factions. Those people just want a fun game to play.

Anyway, the developer is more than 50% of the way through development on the game. They are not going to add another faction at this point. When the game releases, it will have two factions and that's it.

 

You're correct, most people don't know the lore. But you can't rule out those that do know it.

I don't mean to say that they should make the game specifically for those who know the lore without compromise; that would make the game unapproachable. What I am saying is if they do something the fans find egregious, the fallout will cause immense amounts of harm to the game's success. People know the story behind WAR now. People have seen how imbalanced the two factions were in that game. And with this knowledge, those who know the lore will fight ever-harder to avoid having DMO fall into the same issues whether or not WAR's demise was actually caused by having only two factions.

This isn't the kind of bad publicity that spreads like wildfire and eventually makes a positive impact on the game's success. This is the kind of publicity that will cause a large amount of people who are already looking for an MMO to turn away.

3 factions rocks.